Wason selection task

Last updated
Each card has a number on one side and color on the other. Which card or cards must be turned over to test the idea that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is blue? Wason selection task cards.svg
Each card has a number on one side and color on the other. Which card or cards must be turned over to test the idea that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is blue?

The Wason selection task (or four-card problem) is a logic puzzle devised by Peter Cathcart Wason in 1966. [1] [2] [3] It is one of the most famous tasks in the study of deductive reasoning. [4] An example of the puzzle is:

Contents

You are shown a set of four cards placed on a table, each of which has a number on one side and a color on the other. The visible faces of the cards show 3, 8, blue and red. Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is blue?

A response that identifies a card that need not be inverted, or that fails to identify a card that needs to be inverted, is incorrect. The original task dealt with numbers (even, odd) and letters (vowels, consonants).

The test is of special interest because people have a hard time solving it in most scenarios but can usually solve it correctly in certain contexts. In particular, researchers have found that the puzzle is readily solved when the imagined context is policing a social rule.

Solution

The correct response is to turn over the 8 card and the red card.

The rule was "If the card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is blue." Only a card with both an even number on one face and something other than blue on the other face can invalidate this rule:

Use of logic

The interpretation of "if" here is that of the material conditional in classical logic, so this problem can be solved by choosing the cards using modus ponens (all even cards must be checked to ensure they are blue) and modus tollens (all non-blue cards must be checked to ensure they are non-even).

One experiment revolving around the Wason four card problem found many influences on people's selection in this task experiment that were not based on logic. The non-logical inferences made by the participants from this experiment demonstrate the possibility and structure of extra logical reasoning mechanisms. [5]

Alternatively, one might solve the problem by using another reference to zeroth-order logic. In classical propositional logic, the material conditional is false if and only if its antecedent is true and its consequent is false. As an implication of this, two cases need to be inspected in the selection task to check whether we are dealing with a false conditional:

Explanations of performance on the task

In Wason's study, not even 10% of subjects found the correct solution, which for the specific criteria of this problem, would be 8 card and the red card. [6] This result was replicated in 1993. [7] The poor success rate of this selection experiment may be explained by its lack of relevant significance. If this task was reframed, however, empirical evidence has shown an increase in logical responses. [8]

Some authors have argued that participants do not read "if... then..." as the material conditional, since the natural language conditional is not the material conditional. [9] [10] [11] (See also the paradoxes of the material conditional for more information.) However one interesting feature of the task is how participants react when the classical logic solution is explained:

A psychologist, not very well disposed toward logic, once confessed to me that despite all problems in short-term inferences like the Wason Card Task, there was also the undeniable fact that he had never met an experimental subject who did not understand the logical solution when it was explained to him, and then agreed that it was correct. [12]

This latter comment is also controversial, since it does not explain whether the subjects regarded their previous solution as incorrect, or whether they regarded the problem as sufficiently vague to permit two interpretations.[ citation needed ]

Wason also ascribes participants' errors on this selection task due to confirmation bias. Confirmation bias compels people to seek the cards which confirm the rule; meanwhile, they overlook the main purpose of the experiment, which is to purposefully choose the cards that potentially disconfirm the rule. [13]

Policing social rules

As of 1983, experimenters had identified that success on the Wason selection task was highly context-dependent, but there was no theoretical explanation for which contexts elicited mostly correct responses and which ones elicited mostly incorrect responses. [14]

Each card has an age on one side and a drink on the other. Which card(s) must be turned over to test the idea that if you are drinking alcohol, then you must be over 18? Wason selection task cards - drinking variant.svg
Each card has an age on one side and a drink on the other. Which card(s) must be turned over to test the idea that if you are drinking alcohol, then you must be over 18?

Evolutionary psychologists Leda Cosmides and John Tooby (1992) identified that the selection task tends to produce the "correct" response when presented in a context of social relations. [14] For example, if the rule used is "If you are drinking alcohol, then you must be over 18", and the cards have an age on one side and beverage on the other, e.g., "16", "drinking beer", "25", "drinking soda", most people have no difficulty in selecting the correct cards ("16” and "drinking beer"). [14] In a series of experiments in different contexts, subjects demonstrated consistent superior performance when asked to police a social rule involving a benefit that was only legitimately available to someone who had qualified for that benefit. [14] Cosmides and Tooby argued that experimenters have ruled out alternative explanations, such as that people learn the rules of social exchange through practice and find it easier to apply these familiar rules than less-familiar rules. [14]

According to Cosmides and Tooby, this experimental evidence supports the hypothesis that a Wason task proves to be easier if the rule to be tested is one of social exchange (in order to receive benefit X you need to fulfill condition Y) and the subject is asked to police the rule, but is more difficult otherwise. They argued that such a distinction, if empirically borne out, would support the contention of evolutionary psychologists that human reasoning is governed by context-sensitive mechanisms that have evolved, through natural selection, to solve specific problems of social interaction, rather than context-free, general-purpose mechanisms. [14] In this case, the module is described as a specialized cheater-detection module. [14]

Evaluation of social relations hypothesis

Davies et al. (1995) have argued that Cosmides and Tooby's argument in favor of context-sensitive, domain-specific reasoning mechanisms as opposed to general-purpose reasoning mechanisms is theoretically incoherent and inferentially unjustified. [15] Von Sydow (2006) has argued that we have to distinguish deontic and descriptive conditionals, but that the logic of testing deontic conditionals is more systematic (see Beller, 2001) and depend on one's goals (see Sperber & Girotto, 2002). [11] [16] [17] However, in response to Kanazawa (2010), [18] Kaufman et al. (2011) gave 112 subjects a 70-item computerized version of the contextualized Wason card-selection task proposed by Cosmides and Tooby (1992) and found instead that "performance on non-arbitrary, evolutionarily familiar problems is more strongly related to general intelligence than performance on arbitrary, evolutionarily novel problems", [19] and writing for Psychology Today , Kaufman concluded instead that "It seems that general intelligence is very much compatible with evolutionary psychology." [20]

See also

Related Research Articles

Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach in psychology that examines cognition and behavior from a modern evolutionary perspective. It seeks to identify human psychological adaptations with regards to the ancestral problems they evolved to solve. In this framework, psychological traits and mechanisms are either functional products of natural and sexual selection or non-adaptive by-products of other adaptive traits.

Deductive reasoning is the mental process of drawing deductive inferences. An inference is deductively valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises, i.e. it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.

Modularity of mind is the notion that a mind may, at least in part, be composed of innate neural structures or mental modules which have distinct, established, and evolutionarily developed functions. However, different definitions of "module" have been proposed by different authors. According to Jerry Fodor, the author of Modularity of Mind, a system can be considered 'modular' if its functions are made of multiple dimensions or units to some degree. One example of modularity in the mind is binding. When one perceives an object, they take in not only the features of an object, but the integrated features that can operate in sync or independently that create a whole. Instead of just seeing red, round, plastic, and moving, the subject may experience a rolling red ball. Binding may suggest that the mind is modular because it takes multiple cognitive processes to perceive one thing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Material conditional</span> Logical connective

The material conditional is an operation commonly used in logic. When the conditional symbol is interpreted as material implication, a formula is true unless is true and is false. Material implication can also be characterized inferentially by modus ponens, modus tollens, conditional proof, and classical reductio ad absurdum.

The evolution of human intelligence is closely tied to the evolution of the human brain and to the origin of language. The timeline of human evolution spans approximately seven million years, from the separation of the genus Pan until the emergence of behavioral modernity by 50,000 years ago. The first three million years of this timeline concern Sahelanthropus, the following two million concern Australopithecus and the final two million span the history of the genus Homo in the Paleolithic era.

The term standard social science model (SSSM) was first introduced by John Tooby and Leda Cosmides in the 1992 edited volume The Adapted Mind. They used SSSM as a reference to social science philosophies related to the blank slate, relativism, social constructionism, and cultural determinism. They argue that those philosophies, capsulized within SSSM, formed the dominant theoretical paradigm in the development of the social sciences during the 20th century. According to their proposed SSSM paradigm, the mind is a general-purpose cognitive device shaped almost entirely by culture.

Leda Cosmides is an American psychologist, who, together with anthropologist husband John Tooby, pioneered the field of evolutionary psychology.

John Tooby was an American anthropologist, who helped pioneer the field of evolutionary psychology with his psychologist wife Leda Cosmides.

Evolutionary developmental psychology (EDP) is a research paradigm that applies the basic principles of evolution by natural selection, to understand the development of human behavior and cognition. It involves the study of both the genetic and environmental mechanisms that underlie the development of social and cognitive competencies, as well as the epigenetic processes that adapt these competencies to local conditions.

<i>The Adapted Mind</i> 1992 book by Jerome H. Barkow, Leda Cosmides, and John Tooby

The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture is a 1992 book edited by the anthropologists Jerome H. Barkow and John Tooby and the psychologist Leda Cosmides. First published by Oxford University Press, it is widely considered the foundational text of evolutionary psychology (EP), and outlines Cosmides and Tooby's integration of concepts from evolutionary biology and cognitive psychology, as well as many other concepts that would become important in adaptationist research.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Peter Cathcart Wason</span> British psychologist (1924–2003)

Peter Cathcart Wason was a cognitive psychologist at University College, London, who pioneered the psychology of reasoning. He sought to explain why people consistently commit logical errors. He designed problems and tests to demonstrate these behaviours, such as the Wason selection task, the THOG problem and the 2-4-6 problem. He also coined the term "confirmation bias" to describe the tendency for people to immediately favor information that validates their preconceptions, hypotheses and personal beliefs regardless of whether they are true or not.

In psychology, a dual process theory provides an account of how thought can arise in two different ways, or as a result of two different processes. Often, the two processes consist of an implicit (automatic), unconscious process and an explicit (controlled), conscious process. Verbalized explicit processes or attitudes and actions may change with persuasion or education; though implicit process or attitudes usually take a long amount of time to change with the forming of new habits. Dual process theories can be found in social, personality, cognitive, and clinical psychology. It has also been linked with economics via prospect theory and behavioral economics, and increasingly in sociology through cultural analysis.

Evolutionary psychology seeks to identify and understand human psychological traits that have evolved in much the same way as biological traits, through adaptation to environmental cues. Furthermore, it tends toward viewing the vast majority of psychological traits, certainly the most important ones, as the result of past adaptions, which has generated significant controversy and criticism from competing fields. These criticisms include disputes about the testability of evolutionary hypotheses, cognitive assumptions such as massive modularity, vagueness stemming from assumptions about the environment that leads to evolutionary adaptation, the importance of non-genetic and non-adaptive explanations, as well as political and ethical issues in the field itself.

A cognitive module in cognitive psychology is a specialized tool or sub-unit that can be used by other parts to resolve cognitive tasks. It is used in theories of the modularity of mind and the closely related society of mind theory and was developed by Jerry Fodor. It became better known throughout cognitive psychology by means of his book, The Modularity of Mind (1983). The nine aspects he lists that make up a mental module are domain specificity, mandatory operation, limited central accessibility, fast processing, informational encapsulation, "shallow" outputs, fixed neural architecture, characteristic and specific breakdown patterns, and characteristic ontogenetic pace and sequencing. Not all of these are necessary for the unit to be considered a module, but they serve as general parameters.

Cognitive description is a term used in psychology to describe the cognitive workings of the human mind.

Domain-specific learning theories of development hold that we have many independent, specialised knowledge structures (domains), rather than one cohesive knowledge structure. Thus, training in one domain may not impact another independent domain. Domain-general views instead suggest that children possess a "general developmental function" where skills are interrelated through a single cognitive system. Therefore, whereas domain-general theories would propose that acquisition of language and mathematical skill are developed by the same broad set of cognitive skills, domain-specific theories would propose that they are genetically, neurologically and computationally independent.

The psychology of reasoning is the study of how people reason, often broadly defined as the process of drawing conclusions to inform how people solve problems and make decisions. It overlaps with psychology, philosophy, linguistics, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, logic, and probability theory.

Collective induction is a task developed by Steiner and used in research on group problem solving. Broadly, the method entails "the cooperative search for descriptive, predictive, and explanatory generalizations, rules, and principles" among members in a group working on the same task. James Larson further defined collective induction tasks as "[tasks] in which problem solvers work cooperatively to induce a general rule or principle that can account parsimoniously for a given set of facts or observations" This particular process has been used to determine if groups are better problem solvers than individuals.

Evolutionary psychology has traditionally focused on individual-level behaviors, determined by species-typical psychological adaptations. Considerable work, though, has been done on how these adaptations shape and, ultimately govern, culture. Tooby and Cosmides (1989) argued that the mind consists of many domain-specific psychological adaptations, some of which may constrain what cultural material is learned or taught. As opposed to a domain-general cultural acquisition program, where an individual passively receives culturally-transmitted material from the group, Tooby and Cosmides (1989), among others, argue that: "the psyche evolved to generate adaptive rather than repetitive behavior, and hence critically analyzes the behavior of those surrounding it in highly structured and patterned ways, to be used as a rich source of information out of which to construct a 'private culture' or individually tailored adaptive system; in consequence, this system may or may not mirror the behavior of others in any given respect.".

Intuitive statistics, or folk statistics, is the cognitive phenomenon where organisms use data to make generalizations and predictions about the world. This can be a small amount of sample data or training instances, which in turn contribute to inductive inferences about either population-level properties, future data, or both. Inferences can involve revising hypotheses, or beliefs, in light of probabilistic data that inform and motivate future predictions. The informal tendency for cognitive animals to intuitively generate statistical inferences, when formalized with certain axioms of probability theory, constitutes statistics as an academic discipline.

References

  1. ↑ Wason, P. C. (1968). "Reasoning about a rule". Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 20 (3): 273–281. doi:10.1080/14640746808400161. PMID   5683766. S2CID   1212273.
  2. ↑ Wason, P. C. (1966). "Reasoning". In Foss, B. M. (ed.). New horizons in psychology. Vol. 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin. LCCN   66005291.
  3. ↑ Wason, P. C.; Shapiro, Diana (1971). "Natural and contrived experience in a reasoning problem". Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 23: 63–71. doi:10.1080/00335557143000068. S2CID   7903333.
  4. ↑ Manktelow, K. I. (1999). Reasoning and Thinking. Psychology Press. p. 8. ISBN   978-0-86377-708-0. The Wason selection task has often been claimed to be the single most investigated experimental paradigm in the psychology of reasoning.
  5. ↑ Fiddick, Laurence; Cosmides, Leda; Tooby, John (2000-10-16). "No interpretation without representation: the role of domain-specific representations and inferences in the Wason selection task". Cognition. 77 (1): 1–79. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00085-8. ISSN   0010-0277. PMID   10980253.
  6. ↑ Wason, P. C. (1977). "Self-contradictions". In Johnson-Laird, P. N.; Wason, P. C. (eds.). Thinking: Readings in cognitive science . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN   978-0521217569.
  7. ↑ Evans, Jonathan St. B. T.; Newstead, Stephen E.; Byrne, Ruth M. J. (1993). Human Reasoning: The Psychology of Deduction. Psychology Press. ISBN   978-0-86377-313-6.
  8. ↑ Leighton, Jacqueline P; Dawson, Michael R. W (2001-09-01). "A parallel distributed processing model of Wason's selection task". Cognitive Systems Research. 2 (3): 207–231. doi:10.1016/S1389-0417(01)00035-3. ISSN   1389-0417.
  9. ↑ Oaksford, M.; Chater, N. (1994). "A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection". Psychological Review . 101 (4): 608–631. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.174.4085 . doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.608.
  10. ↑ Stenning, K.; van Lambalgen, M. (2004). "A little logic goes a long way: basing experiment on semantic theory in the cognitive science of conditional reasoning". Cognitive Science. 28 (4): 481–530. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.13.1854 . doi:10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.02.002.
  11. 1 2 von Sydow, M. (2006). Towards a Flexible Bayesian and Deontic Logic of Testing Descriptive and Prescriptive Rules (doctoralThesis). Göttingen: Göttingen University Press. doi: 10.53846/goediss-161 . S2CID   246924881.
  12. ↑ van Benthem, Johan (2008). "Logic and reasoning: do the facts matter?". Studia Logica. 88 (1): 67–84. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.130.4704 . doi:10.1007/s11225-008-9101-1. S2CID   11228131.
  13. ↑ Dawson, Erica; Gilovich, Thomas; Regan, Dennis T. (October 2002). "Motivated Reasoning and Performance on the was on Selection Task". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 28 (10): 1379–1387. doi:10.1177/014616702236869. ISSN   0146-1672.
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cosmides, L.; Tooby, J. (1992). "Cognitive Adaptions for Social Exchange" (PDF). In Barkow, J.; Cosmides, L.; Tooby, J. (eds.). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 163–228. ISBN   978-0-19-506023-2.
  15. ↑ Davies, Paul Sheldon; Fetzer, James H.; Foster, Thomas R. (1995). "Logical reasoning and domain specificity". Biology and Philosophy . 10 (1): 1–37. doi:10.1007/BF00851985. S2CID   83429932.
  16. ↑ Beller, S. (2001). "A model theory of deontic reasoning about social norms". In Moore, J. D.; Stenning, K. (eds.). Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 63–68.
  17. ↑ Sperber, D.; Girotto, V. (2002). "Use or misuse of the selection task?". Cognition. 85 (3): 277–290. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.207.3101 . doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00125-7. PMID   12169412. S2CID   2086414.
  18. ↑ Kanazawa, Satoshi (May–June 2010). "Evolutionary Psychology and Intelligence Research" (PDF). American Psychologist . 65 (4): 279–289. doi:10.1037/a0019378. PMID   20455621 . Retrieved February 16, 2018.
  19. ↑ Kaufman, Scott Barry; DeYoung, Colin G.; Reis, Deidre L.; Gray, Jeremy R. (May–June 2010). "General intelligence predicts reasoning ability even for evolutionarily familiar content" (PDF). Intelligence . 39 (5): 311–322. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2011.05.002 . Retrieved February 16, 2018.
  20. ↑ Kaufman, Scott Barry (July 2, 2011). "Is General Intelligence Compatible with Evolutionary Psychology?". Psychology Today . Sussex Publishers. Retrieved February 16, 2018.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.